Do sidearms still matter in current meta?
Thanks to the Scandinavians a few months ago, yes.9mm can penetrate level 3 steel plate and quarter inch flack armour, helmets. And while that ammo is too expensive and not damaging enough to warrant adoption in rifle calibres, its credible for infantry CQB, especially where mixed loads of subsonic are backed up with it.
They never really mattered. They were paperweights in the cold war, they were paperweights in GWOT and Ukraine saw multiple recorded knife kills before it saw single a recorded pistol kill.>>64687150A few months ago? CBJ has existed for decades, alongside a bunch of other 9mm AP loads, nobody cared then and they don't care now.
>>64687021Mostly no but sort of yes. We've known since WW1 that the number of casualties inflicted by pistols is so low it's negligible. They aren't an impactful small arm because their range is limited and it's comparatively harder to accurately shoot a pistol than a rifle, even with training & especially under stress. Pistols in war only inflict casualties in last-resort close-quarters self-defense scenarios, like in civilian life. Combined arms tactics limit those scenarios & because everybody carries a carbine anyways those situations are more likely to be resolved with a carbine. So in terms of practical & actual usefulness, pistols aren't significant & aren't worth the effort.HOWEVER - there's a nontrivial psychological benefit for soldiers carrying pistols. Pistols make soldiers FEEL safer. Because pistols are purely close-quarters self-defense weapons, there are some rare situations where they'll save a soldier's life. For example: a jap/gook sneaks through the line at night and jumps in your foxhole with a bayonet; you're clearing a house in Fallujah and a towelie pops around the corner & grapples for your rifle; you lean your rifle on a nearby tree while you squat to shit in the snow, then a lost Kraut walks up on you because he accidentally slipped through your line while he was searching for a place to shit in the snow. These are generic examples from history, but they apply to all modern conflicts. Average soldiers won't be in these situations, but they're aware that it's possible, and a soldier feels much safer with a loaded pistol on his side, always in reach. Anecdotally - I asked a buddy who carries a radio in the Marines. He said he generally prefers not to carry a pistol because it's just one more thing to carry, but if he was going into an active combat zone he'd feel better having one. He said he'd prefer it to be smaller than an M9 or P320; something like a P365 or an M&P Bodyguard would be enough. Just one Marine's opinion
>>64687150>forgotten weapons does a vid on thw CBJ ammo>thousands of retards think its newyoung or brown?
>>64687021Never have.
>>64687150are you a time traveler?that shit isn't new
>>64687150kys eceleb homo your dad would've beaten you into shape if he'd stayed
>>64687150lol as if plates are wide spread in the ukrainian battlefield
>>64687150>thanks to the Scandinavians a few months ago6.5CBJ has been around for ages. Ian’s audience only just recently learned of its existence. I remember there were like 10 threads up that week of guys asking why the army doesn’t just adopt this new 6.5CBJ wunderpatron lol. The tldr is that it’s a one-trick pony and its trick isn’t even exclusive to it. Any body armor can be defeated with an arbitrary amount of energy, so long as it’s concentrated in a small enough area. a 9mm tungsten-core discarding sabot would work just as well.
>>64687021Pistols have always been for officers and truck drivers
>>64687021>metafaggot
>>64687021>current metaCan you talk like a human being? I have no idea WTF you are saying.
